Featured Domains

On Friday, United States District Judge George Hanks in Galveston denied a request for an injunction that would have stopped the United States from allowing its contract with ICANN for IANA functions to expire.

The request was made in a lawsuit filed by four conservative U.S. states as a last-ditch effort to force the U.S. government to extend its IANA contract with ICANN.

Following Hanks’ denial, the contract expired at midnight Saturday morning, removing the United States’ largely clerical role in managing of the IANA functions.

Four conservative states take up Cruz’s failed crusade to block IANA contract expiration.

Attorneys General of four conservative states have filed a lawsuit (pdf) in an effort to block the U.S. government’s contract with ICANN for IANA functions from expiring tomorrow night.

The move comes after an effort led by some congressional representatives, including Ted Cruz of Texas, apparently failed to block the transition in a continuing resolution that keeps the federal government operating.

The suit was filed by the States of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and Nevada against the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), The United States of America, U.S. Department of Commerce, Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, and Assistant Secretary of Commerce Lawrence Strickling.

Given the tight timeframe, the suit asks for a temporary restraining order.

The crux of the states’ arguments is that letting the contract expire violates the property clause of the constitution as well as violates the first amendment.

Both of these arguments have been frequently put forth by opponents to the transition.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has already determined that the expiration of the contract is unlikely to constitute a transfer of government property.

The first amendment argument has been widely debunked. The IANA functions do not cover content, and this is usually regulated by governments within their own borders. The only way the IANA functions have been used to impact free speech in the past was, ironically, when the U.S. government temporarily blocked the addition of the .xxx top level domain name.

So what’s the danger? What if a local judge grants a restraining order that halts the process for a while? As Kieren McCarthy explains in DNW Podcast #103, it would empower governments to create an alternative to the existing naming system and its governance, ultimately resulting in more government control of the internet, not less.

Last night’s presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton certainly was spirited. And there was a brief moment where it looked like the ICANN/IANA transition might be mentioned, at least at a high level.

My ears perked up when moderator Lester Holt asked this question:

Our next segment is called “Securing America.” We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who’s behind it? And how do we fight it?

This would be the time for a candidate to interject with something about the IANA transition, and the most likely person to mention it would be Trump given that his campaign has released a statement about it.

And for a second, it looked like Trump might go there. He mentioned the trigger words Russia and China, the U.S. creating the internet, and losing control. Referring to the DNC hacking, he said: Click here to continue reading…

The U.S. is “giving away the internet”? Hardly. On today’s show, journalist Kieren McCarthy explains what the U.S. government plans to do with its role in the internet at the end of this month, why it will not affect free speech, and why we need not worry about Russia or China taking over the internet as a result. Kieren, who writes for The Register, has been covering ICANN for many years and even worked there for a while, so he brings a unique perspective to the conversation. Also, a review of the latest news including GoDaddy, MMX, .NYC and more.

The hearing had two parts. The first featured Göran Marby, CEO of ICANN CEO, and Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the Department of Commerce. I only watched this first part, as the second seemed like a waste of time. Among the witnesses in the second part was Karsten, there to complain about how new top level domains were allocated.

Cruz pitched this as a choice between preserving the first amendment on the internet or handing it over to authoritarian regimes like China, Russia and Iran.

Marby and Strickling repeatedly disputed this characterization, pointing out that ICANN has no role in content and that the transition is set up so that the U.S. can easily block any movement brought forth by China, Russia or Iran. Click here to continue reading…